10 Brilliant Scientists and Their Views of God

I served in the U.S. Coast Guard and then went to college. My interests are music, nature, biology, rural life, animals, and cars.

Science and Theology

Why are we interested in the views that ten scientists had about God? The answer is that, unintentionally or not, these scientists had a greater impact on theology than most theologians. Their work conflicted with the viewpoints of religious conservatives, but it's less clear whether their discoveries really supported atheism or actually provided evidence for the existence of a supreme intelligence.

Edwin Hubble's work with red light shift resulted in the "expanding universe" theory and the "Big Bang" theory. These ideas flew in the face of both biblical creationism and atheism because there now was a beginning location and a beginning time for the start of our universe. This conflicted first with the atheistic idea that the universe had always existed: no beginning and no end. But, secondly, it also conflicted with the story of biblical creation.

Most scientists today accept these theories as fact. Hubble probably had a greater impact on mankind's viewpoints about a supreme being than any other scientist, but he scrupulously avoided giving any hint of his personal ideas about a supreme intelligence.

Most of these men were scientists first and foremost, and oftentimes, they gave little thought to anything that might interfere with their work, including theology. But as we'll see, these great intellects were hardly in agreement about science, to say nothing of theology.

Charles Darwin

1. The Darwin Tempest

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution set off a firestorm of controversy that continues even today. The concept of one species directly descending from another contradicted biblical creationism and was considered a godless explanation for life and man.

The onetime ministerial student wrote in a letter to John Fordyce in 1879, "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that...an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.” So Darwin, by his own words, was an agnostic.

Max Planck

2. Max Planck — Quantum Mechanics

Max Planck, a German physicist, founded quantum theory. Simply put, this theory provided a tool for understanding atomic level activity and the influence of surrounding fields. Some claim this theory is where science and theology intersect. He was a Christian but did not condemn those who thought differently. He once said, "Religion is the link that binds man to God." Therefore, we can conclude that Max Plank is a believer.

Albert Einstein

3. Albert Einstein — Energy and Matter

Albert Einstein’s philosophy about the supernatural is complicated and perhaps brilliant, much like his theories in physics. His most telling statement was, “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”

Einstein seems to have rejected traditional religious views in favor of a force that gives order to the universe. We might call Einstein a deist since he believed in some organizing power but completely rejected the idea of a personal God.

4. Edwin Hubble — the Expanding Universe

Edwin Hubble's work laid the foundation for the expanding universe theory and the resulting "Big Bang" theory of the creation of the universe. His other accomplishments in astronomy are also amazing. Galaxies existing beyond our own and redshift-distance relationship were also his contributions.

Hubble was raised Christian, and in some early letters alluded to the idea that he believed he had some sort of “destiny” which wasn’t explained. Hubble’s thoughts about God, if he had any, are unknown.

J. Robert Oppenheimer

5. J. Robert Oppenheimer — Fan of Eastern Literature

J. Robert Oppenheimer, a physicist and scientific director of the Manhattan Project, was known to be interested in Eastern religions, and he sometimes quoted from Eastern philosophy. He read the Bhagavad Gita while in college and was greatly impressed with it. But, aside from an intellectual interest, there is no evidence that Oppenheimer believed in or practiced any religion. Whether Oppenheimer believed in a higher power of any form is unknown.

Edward Teller

6. Edward Teller — the Ultimate Deterrent

Edward Teller, know as the “Father of the H-Bomb” was an avowed agnostic with faith in technology, not a supreme being. Like many of his contemporaries, he was driven by his work and gave little or no thought to God or philosophy. His Jewish background was virtually missing from his later life. Edward Teller was an agnostic.

James Watson

7. James Watson — DNA Co-Discoverer

James Watson was half of the famed research team of Watson and Crick that unraveled the secrets of DNA. The results of his work have evolved into the advanced genetic research of today.

Watson once told his students that he was "a total believer in evolution," and feels the Bible is "just not right" in the face of science. He also confessed that he does not believe in a soul or anything divine. James Watson is an atheist.

Francis Crick

8. Francis Crick — DNA Co-Discoverer

Francis Crick , the other half of the Watson and Crick team, was speaking to a reporter for The Telegraph and said, "The god hypothesis is rather discredited." He also once stated that his distaste for religion was a primary driving factor in his research, which he felt would debunk the God theory for good. Francis Crick, obviously, was an atheist.

Carl Sagan

9. Carl Sagan — a Modern View

Carl Sagan, “The People’s Astronomer," made many interesting statements about God. He once said, “The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying ... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.”

Sagan, however, denied that he was an atheist saying, "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know." In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic."

10. Stephen Hawking — the Genius With ALS

Stephen Hawking, the most famed physicist alive today, once wrote that "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics…" Is this a puzzling statement coming from someone who grew up in an atheist household?

In a perhaps more telling statement from Hawking, he stated that, “An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!” It is well known by Hawking followers that he doesn’t believe in God — at least not in any conventional sense. We’ll call it as being “reasonably certain” that Stephen Hawking is an atheist.

10 Scientists and 4 Different Beliefs

The final score:

Conventional believer in God: 1

Deists: 1

Agnostics: 3

Atheists: 3

Unknown Views: 2

No doubt we can argue over the classification of some of their beliefs and we can pick other brilliant men of science and come up with different numerical results, but the real surprise here is that such a disparity of personal philosophies is reached. They all follow their intellects to new and astounding discoveries, but the process seems to yield no insight into a first cause or lack of one. The main point of agreement is that the universe is so amazing and incredible that people will gladly spend their lives studying the "what" and "when" of it, and for some, that mitigates any need to ask "why."

So where does that leave the rest of us with relatively normal brainpower? We can study and observe until we reach our own conclusions about God, religion, and ourselves. It seems that in the end, it really does come down to belief — a belief that we hopefully reach by using our reasoning and not by blindly accepting a personal philosophy. Maybe this is where science and God actually do meet.

Comments

Submit a Comment

You Must Sign In To Comment

To comment on this article, you must sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

Catherine Giordano 2 years agofrom Orlando Florida

I don't think there are any brilliant scientists who believe in God (or gods) as defined by the major religions of the world. When you look at their statements, you have to realize that it has always been very unpopular to be an atheist, even more so in the past than now. So many prominent people tiptoed around it with words like "agnostic."

Ammon Beardmore 3 years ago

I read somewhere that most scientist believe in God or a high power of some sort just like the majority of the population. I found the article inspiring.

Rod Martin Jr 3 years agofrom Cebu, Philippines

Fascinating article. A lot of good points. I disagree with the idea that Big Bang went against creation. If there really was a bang, then it might have been the method of creation -- issuing forth points to view and intentions-counterintentions as the basis of energy, with "resting" as the foundation of persistence or time.

Spirit is superior to physical reality, just as cause is superior to effect. As a spiritual being, I have seen this.

Scientists do a good job studying the products of God's creation.

So-called "conservative" Christians (not all of them, mind you) have big egos -- the very thing Christ wanted us to do away with. For he said that the first (egoist) shall be last, and the last (humble) shall be first.

We all have much more to learn.

I think Einstein had it right. He had the attitude of a child in a toy store. Awe and an open humility to learn more. Regrettably, he let his ego get in the way with quantum mechanics. But we can learn from his mistakes.

Author

Hugh Williamson 3 years agofrom Northeast USA

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Author

Hugh Williamson 3 years agofrom Northeast USA

Thanks for reading & commenting.

Jessy Katz 3 years agofrom Boston

It is no secret that most brilliant man ever lived had had problems with religion. religions keeps man thoughts on hold, and emasculating man's free spirit to create and share new ideas, only because the fear of heresy.

Oztinato 3 years agofrom Australia

This Hub has forgotten to mention Kurt Godel, Einstein's successor.

The Hub also forgets that most of the famous scientists up until the 20th Century were devout believers; many were monks.

Raymond Philippe 4 years agofrom The Netherlands

I enjoyed this hub. I find it interesting to read people's views on this topic.

Author

Hugh Williamson 4 years agofrom Northeast USA

Agreed. Thanks for the feedback.

William 4 years agofrom America

Thank you for this hub. Although many learned individuals do not profess strong religious beliefs, I do not think that it is frequently the case. You find agnostics, atheists and religious individuals in all walks of life.

Author

Hugh Williamson 4 years agofrom Northeast USA

Thanks for your comment.

manatita44 4 years agofrom london

Well thought out and reasoned well, my Brother.

Interesting piece.

Author

Hugh Williamson 4 years agofrom Northeast USA

I think it's difficult to make our way through life without "beliefs" of some sort. They may change but aren't we defined by our beliefs in the end?

Thanks for reading & commenting.

Kukata Kali 4 years ago

Loved this expression and the information presented. Way to go on the short description of each scientist. That could've gotten tricky. To pose a question...who ever told humans they must "believe" anything anyway? We are here to express and learn. To believe one thing or another doesn't change that. It only gets in the way of our forward movement. Regardless of what one "believes" I think a more important question, even to assess character would be, "What are you doing with it?"

Voted up~

Author

Hugh Williamson 4 years agofrom Northeast USA

Thanks for reading & commenting.

Zachary 4 years agofrom USA

Great article, well worth the time put in. I find it a bit obvious how religious beliefs among scientists dwindled significantly since Darwin. I also read a book by Francis Collins, the founder of the human genome project (Christian), and found that by him keeping his "God" separate from science, it hasn't hindered him the way it may have for Einstein and Planck. Either way I'm glad to see 85% of reputable scientists in the aitheist category, and project that number to grow significantly in the next 100 years. I appreciate your work, and look forward to seeing more!

Spikology 5 years ago

Great article, very insightful. I once read a paper about a scientist that was a believer, turned atheist, turned believer again (sounds like a rollercoaster!). He brought up a good point, stating that he and his peers, in the beginning of their careers, felt pressure in the scientific community to be atheist, but as he got older and more confident in himself, he realized that religion is a personal decision, no matter what profession you are. Thanks.

Author

Hugh Williamson 5 years agofrom Northeast USA

Good thoughts. Thanks for reading & commenting.

Tara Tufford 5 years agofrom Columbus, Ohio

Great Hub Hugh! The existence of God, will continue to be a long-never-ending argument for as long as anyone will live. Personally, I believe that searching for the existence of God, should be traced back a little bit further, possibly even to philosophical beginnings, such as the work of Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and so forth. That, to me, is where most of the true searching and noble opinions should begin. But, that is my opinion. Everyone finds their own meaning of God, within their means, and within their own comfort zone. Spirituality is individual, as are religious beliefs, and finding the truth as to whether or not God does exist, or finding the true meaning "in" God should be individual as well. Everyone should be allowed to complete their own research and add up their own findings without being humiliated or criticized. I am still in search of my own spiritual guidance, which I am realizing may not end up with the simple answer of whether or not I believe if God exists or does not exist, it may turn out to be much deeper than that. Surprisingly enough, what is spiritually cleansing for me is knowing that I may never know the "truth". I will keep on searching!!

Thanks Hugh for the great hub!

Author

Hugh Williamson 5 years agofrom Northeast USA

I suppose that could be. Good point.

eekamouz 5 years agofrom Oregon

Peer pressure exists in virtually everything. Just as corporations have a certain culture they expect people to assimilate to, I'm sure there's the same in science. Here is what I wonder... if maybe there is a pressure in the scientific community to be a non-believer and they may use 'office politics' of sorts and hostility to push religious people out of the field?

Author

Hugh Williamson 5 years agofrom Northeast USA

Hi DF -

I believe we know about a billionth of what we would need to know to make any sort of authoritative statement on the issue.

That doesn't seem to stop many people though.

Thanks for reading & commenting.

DFiduccia 5 years agofrom Las Vegas

You've covered all of my idols in one Hub (no pun intended). This article is a well-organized and well thought out presentation. A person could lose their mind trying to contemplate a beginning to the existence of the universe. For instance, where did the matter that came together for the Bang Bang originate. Another collapsing universe?

I've walked the fence on these issues all my life, despite having been raised Catholic. It is and always will be, at least in my lifetime— an enigma.

...voted up—DF

Author

Hugh Williamson 6 years agofrom Northeast USA

Glad you found this useful. I've found that people seem to like it when information is presented without a dose of personal opinion.

Thanks for your comment.

Pikachusif 6 years agofrom Castelia City, Unova

I say that this was a fantastic Hub. I must agree with Mr. Bowman, as the more educated you are, then the less likely you are to believe in any sort of ludicrous religion. Magnificent, simply magnificent.

-The Yellow Blur, Pikachusif

Author

Hugh Williamson 6 years agofrom Northeast USA

Thanks for reading Rah. I appreciate the feedback.

Rah128 6 years agofrom Southampton

Hi Hugh,

By far a great hub and it's interesting to see the greatist minds of all times, take a logical and rational view of religion and God/s.

Rah :)

DK 6 years agofrom London

I agree Hugh, and just so as you know, it's in the book "The Grand Design" :)

Author

Hugh Williamson 6 years agofrom Northeast USA

Hi Philanthropy2012 and thanks for the update.

Hawking is an amazing scientist and I believe whatever he states merits consideration. I haven't read much lately about him but I'd be interested in hearing whether he believes he has offered proof or merely evidence.

DK 6 years agofrom London

Hey @Hugh, very interesting and balanced, though I've read that Stephen Hawking has recently claimed that he has satisfactorily proven that the Universe was created without a God, satisfactorily in his opinion, the basis of his proof most likely being incomprehensible to the average mind :S

Author

Hugh Williamson 6 years agofrom Northeast USA

Stephen - thanks for reading and for commenting.

StephenSMcmillan 6 years ago

WOW!Awesome article.

It seems that most scientists didn't recognize God's Existence.

Author

Hugh Williamson 6 years agofrom Northeast USA

It is what it is.

newday98033 6 years ago

One could say that dark energy is the relationship between everything in this universe with everything else in this universe. It can't be discovered as an actuality unless one is willing to accept that one has such a relationship with everything. Then it becomes pretty apparent. Hawking wants to believe something to explain something. Not a good idea if you want to understand. What is, is.

Nathan Jonfield 6 years ago

Pertaining to Charles Darwin, the following are the extracted words from the Bible that have nothing to do with evolution:

Genesis 2:21-22, "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

From the verses above, would anybody still come to the conclusion that human beings were evolved from apes?

Jason Tannery 6 years ago

The following are the evidence to prove that Stephen Hawking has abused science to support his Big Bang theory in which gravity could exist prior to the formation of the universe to create something out of nothing since his theory has contradicted not only Isaac Newton’s principle, but also Eistein’s theory:

The following is the extract of the second paragraph under the sub-title of “Negative Pressure” for the main subject of the ‘Nature Of Dark Energy’ as shown in the website address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy:

According to General Relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the Stress-energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity.

As the phrase, the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is mentioned in the extracted paragraph, it gives the implication that physical quantity of matter has to exist prior to the generation of gravitational effects. Or in other words, it opposes the principality that gravitational effects could occur at the absence of matter. As it is described pertaining to Dark Energy, it implies that Dark Energy could only be derived from the existence of the physical quantity of matter. This certainly rejects Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy could exist prior to the formation of the universe as if that dark energy could exist the support or influence from the physical quantity of matter.

The following is the extract of the third paragraph under the sub-title of ‘Cosmological Constant’ for the main subject of the ‘Nature of Dark Energy’ that has been extracted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy:

The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the “cost of having space”: that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek letter ?, the symbol used to mathematically represent this quantity. Since energy and mass are related by E = mc2, Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that it will have a gravitational effect..

E = mc2 has been used to be related to Dark Energy. As energy and mass are related in according to General Relativity and if m = 0, no matter how big the number that c could be, E (the dark energy) would turn up to be 0 since no matter how big the number c is E is always equal to 0 when 0 (that is the mass) is multiplied by c2. Or in other words, E (the dark energy) should be equal to 0 at the absence of substance (the mass). Stephen Hawking’s theory certainly contradicts Eistein’s theory in the sense that he supports that dark energy ( E > 0) could exist even though there could not be any matter (that is m = 0) existed prior to the formation of the universe.

Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between the two objects. Fg = G(m1 m2)/r2. (Fg is the gravitational force; m1 & m2 are the masses of the two objects; r is the separation between the objects and G is the universal gravitational constant. From the formula, we note that Fg (the gravitational force or in replacement of dark energy) has a direct influence from two masses (m1 & m2). If either of the m is equal to 0, Fg would turn up to be 0. Isaac Newton’s theory certainly opposes Stephen Hawking in which gravity or the so-called, dark energy, could exist at the absence of matter prior to the formation of this universe in this energy or gravity could create something out of nothing.

Stephen Hawking might comment that Eistein’s and Isaac Newton’s principles are wrong. However, Stephen Hawking was not born at the time prior to the formation of this universe to visualize how the universe could be formed initially. To jump into the conclusion that the universe could be created from something out of nothing is simply out of his own imagination. Not only that, his theory contradicts both Eistein’s and Isaac Newton’s principles pertaining to gravity.

The following is the extract from the above websites under the fourth paragraph:

The new image reveals the spectral fingerprints created by dark energy as it stretches huge supervoids and superclusters, structures that are roughly half a billion light-years across.

Dark energy is being defined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy as a hypothical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe. Despite there was an image to reveal the existence of something, or the so-called, dark energy, that it could stretch huge supervoids and superclusters even up to half a billion light-years across, it might not provide the truth that the universe could be expanding due to the following possibilities:

a)The universe itself could be created initially in infinity and there might be no space limit or boundary. If that could be our universe to be since nobody in this earth did ever see any boundary of this universe, the thing that stretches huge supervoids and superclusters, structures to move would not lead to the conclusion that this universe could be expanding. Instead, it simply gives information that something has been causing the huge supervoids and superclusters to move forward.

b)There could be also the possibility that this universe could be so huge that it could take a few trillion light years for galaxies to travel from one end to another in order to have their return facing us in a few trillion light years later.

There are a few likeliness that would not give the conclusion that the universe could be expanding by seeing that thing that stretches huge supervoids and superclusters across and there are:

1)The so-called, dark energy, might simply perform its routine function to cause the huge supervoids and superclusters to be stretched across and yet it is either within the huge boundary of the universe in which it would take a trillion years for the galaxies to travel from one end to another until its final return in advancing to us in a few trillion years later or in the universe that could have been created to be lasted until infinity.

In 1972, Allan Sandage of the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California, US, reasoned that in the nearby universe - where the expansion is at its slowest - the gravitational attraction between groups and clusters of galaxies should produce significant deviations in their velocities from the otherwise largely smooth speed of expansion. These deviations are called "peculiar velocities", but Sandage pointed out that galaxies in our vicinity - those lying just beyond our "Local Group" of the Milky Way and its immediate neighbours - showed abnormally low peculiar velocities.

Let’s assume that you would blow a balloon. The air would go from one end and to move in one direction to cause the balloon to expand. However, consideration has to be taken in is the moving speed for all particles in the balloon should be the same regardless whether those particles that are nearby each other or big or small to the ultimate reach of the boundary of the balloon so as to cause it to expand further. There should not be any reason for all particles within the balloon to travel with various speeds despite the particles could be big or small.

As discovered by Allan Sandage of the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California, in 1972 that there is a significant deviations in their velocities among galaxies, it does not provide a good source to prove the galaxies might be expanding. If there could be a constant force that could cause the universe to be expanded, the moving speed for all the galaxies should be the same in advancing further away from us instead of with irregular velocities that some are advancing faster than another.

When the team compared galaxies against the CMB, they found that the microwaves were a bit stronger if they had passed through a supercluster, and a bit weaker if they had passed through a supervoid.

As the velocities of all the galaxies have been deviated from each other, it is irrational to be quick to jump into the conclusion that our universe could be expanding so as to use it to support Big Bang theory.

Cashbackshopper 6 years ago

Great work I totally agree with all the great people. I'm an agnostic and totally

The fourth paragraph of the reply as listed in the above website address has been listed here for discussion:

A useful analogy here is to take an empty balloon, draw dots all over it to represent galaxies, and pretend that we live on one of the dots. As you blow up the balloon, ALL of the dots move apart from each other. And the ones that are farthest away from us move the fastest.

There are some discrepancies between balloon and the galaxies in which balloon might not be suitable to be used to support Edwin Hubble’s theory:

a)There is a visible boundary in the empty balloon and that is the plastic that is made up of that balloon. However, we do not know whether there is any boundary in this universe or whether this universe could be itself in infinity and there could be no way to talk about expansion since there could be no limited in space. Even if there is a boundary that covers the universe, we do not know what matter that is made up of that boundary. The example that is used for balloon is plastic. The plastic is indeed stretchable. However, we do not know even whether the boundary of this universe is stretchable. As you continue to blow the plastic balloon, it would soon burst. This should not be applicable to the universe. As there are discrepancies between balloon and the uncertainty whether there could be a boundary of this universe, it is irrational to use balloon as an illustration to support Hubble’s theory.

b) As we blow the balloon, all the air would go into one direction to cause the balloon to expand. However, there are a few galaxies are in blue shift that could not go adversely. As there are discrepancies between balloon and this universe, how could we use balloon for the illustration of this universe?

c)As we blow the balloon, all the air would go into one direction. If we assume that there is a strong force from the centre of the earth to blow in all its surrounding, certainly all the galaxies in the surrounding would move farthest away from this earth. As there is a continuous force to push from the centre of the earth to other surrounding galaxies, all galaxies whether they are near or far would move farthest away from the earth and there should not be any reason for some galaxies to have blue shift. This assumption is simply using the earth as the centre to be the force to cause other galaxies to advance away from us.

Let’s assume that the force has come from one of other galaxies far away from us. The force that is directed would cause other galaxies and these include our galaxy to advance further away from that galaxy. Or in other words, our galaxy would also be advancing instead of merely other galaxies. As the force might not be from us and it might be from one of other galaxies, our earth could not be assumed to be the centre to the force to cause other galaxies to move. If that could be so, there should be many blue shift at all time instead of many red. Thus, the assumption that the force could be come from one of other galaxies to cause galaxies to advance could not be acceptable in Hubble’s law.

Nevertheless, it seems to be that Hubble’s theory could not be acceptable if we could use the earth to be the centre as a force that causes the surrounding of the galaxies to advance further. However, there is a shortfall in Hubble’s theory since why blue shift should appear then.

d)As we blow the balloon, all the particles in the balloon is moving in one direction in a constant speed. Let’s assume that there is a force that causes other galaxies to move farthest away from us. There are a few queries to be raised: As there is a constant force to cause the galaxies to be expanded and this has resulted that the galaxies should move farthest away in constant speed from us, why is it that some galaxies could move faster than the other? If there is a force to cause our galaxies to be expanded and this has resulted that the galaxies to move further away from us, our galaxy should indeed join the queue in advancing instead of stationing here and many of other galaxies seem advancing further away from us except that we are not advancing further.

Author

Hugh Williamson 6 years agofrom Northeast USA

JT - Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Jason Tannery 6 years ago

Edwin Hubble’s theory does not provide any support for the Big Bang’s theory since his theory involves speculation since we do not have the full sight of how this entire universe could look like.

Is it true to mention that there is no blue shift in this universe? The following are the websites addresses in which you could locate evidences that there are blue shifts in the galaxies to disprove the argument:

The following are the possible reasons for the above blue shifts to arise:

a) This universe could have an immense space in which it might take more than 12 billion light years or even trillion light years to travel from one end of the universe to another initially. These galaxies might have travelled more than a half round in their usual routine tracks of rotation to its return and that there could be a possibility that there were a period of long time and that could be more than 12 billion light years ago that most of the galaxies might be in blue shift. As some of the galaxies are advancing slower than majority of the galaxies, it turns up that majority might have completed their full turn and moving upward and advancing further away from us and leaving a few galaxies to be in blue shift currently. As nobody could see the universe as a whole from the very past, especially what was beyond 12 billion light years ago or even trillion years ago, there could be such a possibility to occur in this universe. To jump into the conclusion that this universe is expanding simply by seeing many red shift is rather speculative.

b) There could be a reason in which that all the galaxies might have travelled faster than the above-mentioned galaxies bypass our galaxies in numerous years ago and ultimately causes these galaxies to fall behind due to their rotating speed is slowly than most of the galaxies. This assumption includes the possibility that there could be many blue shifts in numerous years ago and that could be beyond 12 billion light years ago, as the galaxies were travelling a rapid speed toward us. As most of the galaxies have bypassed our galaxies in the past and at the same time they have completed a full turn from its rotation, these certainly result in many red-shifts in current world due to most of the galaxies have moved upward following its usual movement tracks for its half turn of its rotation. As a result, this causes us to have more red-shifts than blue currently.

Most of the galaxies might not pass through us to be the centre of the point for rotating. However, it could be the possibility that most of the galaxies could have bypassed us in numerous years ago and this could be the reason to have the result in many red shifts than blue currently.

As some of the galaxies were moving slower than most of the galaxies, this results that there are more red-shifts than blue currently.

c) There could be a reason that some galaxies are moving fastest speed than the other and this causes some galaxies to be in blue shift since they have completed a half round turn in facing our universe in advancing.

d)There could be many other possible reasons that we could think of for the possibilities to have more red-shifts than blue currently and that does not come to the conclusion that our universe is expanding or this universe could create something out of nothing.

Some might mention that the discovery of many red shift in the galaxies have moving further away in rapid speed, could provide the support of dark matter theory or Big Bang theory. However, there is a possibility that most of the galaxies might well perform their routine movement and it might not give any signal that this universe could be expanding. As most galaxies are travelling in rapid speed, this causes them to bypass us fastest than a few galaxies and this has resulted in more red shifts than blue currently.

Some might have mentioned that the observation could be through 12 billion light years old that the galaxies have been moved in all directions further away from us. However, consideration has to be taken into accounts pertaining to the size of the universe since the size of the universe could be so immense that galaxies might take more than 12 billion light years or even much longer than that, such as, a few trillion years in order for galaxies to make a half turn in rotation in order for us to have most of the galaxies to be in blue shift. As nobody could have the full view of this universe and nobody did see whether there could be a boundary of this universe, we could not reject the possibility of the vast space of this universe. Or in other words, there could be a possibility that galaxies might take more than 12 billion light years or even trillion light years in order that most of the planets could complete their half round turn so that we could have the many blue shift from that time onwards.

Nevertheless, it is irrational to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding simply by observing the galaxies are advancing further away from us to conclude that our universe is expanding.

Author

Hugh Williamson 6 years agofrom Northeast USA

JT - Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.

Jason Tannery 6 years ago

The reasons why the discovery of Edwin Hubble does not prove that our universe could be expanding:

Despite his discovery about many red shifts in the galaxies through observations instead of hypotheses or theory drawn from the data, there is a shortfall in his discovery. This is due to his observation about many red-shifts in the galaxies was throughout his limited span of life instead of throughout generations from generations since it might take many years, let’s assume more than 1000 years or even higher, in order to get all blue shifts at that time.

There could be a possibility that there were many blue-shifts in the past, let’s say, more than a few hundred years ago, due to many galaxies might have made a full turn at the same time. As many galaxies might have made a full turn in the past, the current view that galaxies have shown many red shifts do not reflect that the universe is expanding.

As we are living in this small little earth, our perception through telescope could not give a full view pertaining to the situation about how our universe is responding.

Edwin Hubble mentioned that the universe is expanding as if there is a boundary in this universe. If there could be no boundary that could restrict the universe, the universe should be in infinity. As we do not have a full view of the universe as a whole, to mention that this universe is expanding is little speculation in the sense that we do not know whether the universe could be in infinity or not.

For instance, if this universe were in infinity, there should not be any reason for us to mention that this universe is expanding. Many red-shifts that the astronomers gather from galaxies could only show that many galaxies are advancing further away from us and it does not reflect that our universe is expanding since the universe is in infinity.

For instance, if this universe could have a finite space, it is rational to assume that there should be a boundary to restrict the space of this universe. If there could be no boundary to restrict the space of this universe, how could there be a finite space in this universe? If there could be no boundary in this universe, how could the astronomers presume that the universe is expanding by seeing many red-shifts in the galaxies? To jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding without realizing whether this universe has a finite space is a little speculation.

If this universe has a finite space, it is rational to assume that this universe should look like a sphere or a sphere with oval shape. It is irrational to assume that this universe should look like cube or rectangular shape or whatever. To assume that the universe would look like a sphere, is simply an illustration so to give the possibility of why red shifts do not reflect the truth that the universe is expanding. We could not have a full sight of this universe whether there could be a boundary. What if the universe does have the shape of sphere in reality, giving an example that this universe as a sphere would be the most appropriate approach. As we could not have the full sight of this universe, to jump into the conclusion by seeing many red-shift is rather a little speculation.

As Edwin Hubble's observation could not be used to support Big Bang theory since it is just speculation, nothing could prove that Stephen Hawking's theory (that this world is not created by God but through Big Bang theory or gravity creates something out of nothing through quantum theory) is correct.

Author

Hugh Williamson 6 years agofrom Northeast USA

JT - Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.

Jason Tannery 6 years ago

Stephen Hawking supports that this whole universe is created by gravity through quantum theory as if that gravity could exist apart from any object. However, Isaac Newton supported that gravity is the attraction from two objects and he set up the gravity as follows that has to be dealt with masses:

F = G x (m1 x m2)/r2. (m1 and m2 are the respective masses of the two objects, r is the distance between them and G is constant known as the gravitational constant (G = 6.672 x 10-11 Nm2/Kg2).

Isaac Newton even supports that the more mass the more gravity. Or in other words, no mass no gravity.

Yet Stephen Hawking established the theory that the universe was created prior to the formation of this universe as if that gravity could exist without matter and that causes his theory to have contradiction with Isaac Newton and even his equation of universal law of gravitation that has the link to masses.

Jason Tannery 6 years ago

Charles Darwin supports that human beings were evolved from apes. There are a few reason to disprove his evolution:

a) He was not born prior to the formation of the first human beings and could not see how human beings were formed. How could he jump into the conclusion that human beings were evolved from evolution without any eyes-witnessing? His theory is rather from his wild imagination to put all skulls that have been found in the past in progressive order so as to support his theory.

b) None of the apes in this world could speak in human languages. As apes could not speak in human languages, how could human beings be evolved from apes?

Jason Tannery 6 years ago

Soon after astronomer Edwin Hubble proved the universe was expanding, it became evident that the universe was once very much smaller. The theory that the universe started from a single point (or very small area) is known as the big bang theory. The big bang theory has caused scientists to suggest that this universe would keep on expanding and creating by itself.

The reason why astronomer Edwin Hubble claimed that he discovered the universe was expanding was merely due to he discovered that the galaxies were moving further away from this earth at higher speeds, proportional to their distance and from then, he jumped into the conclusion that the universe was expanding.

However, there are a few reasons that are listed out below to show that it is irrational to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding by seeing the galaxies were moving with higher speeds far away from the earth:

a) Let’s visualize that you are standing at a point where the earth rotates around the sun. As the earth makes a half round turn towards the point that is opposite to you, certainly you would express that the earth is moving far away from you. Let’s assume that you do not know that the earth simply rotates around the sun in a complete turn and what you have seen initially was simply its moving away from you right to the point that is opposite than you. Could you jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding simply due to you see the earth moving far away from you? Surely you cannot jump into this conclusion since the earth would spend about 182 days to rotate from the point that is opposite than you to the ultimate place where you stand to visualize and focus on its movement.

The same thing happened to the astronomer Edwin Hubble. He could not jump into the conclusion that the universe was expanding by seeing that galaxies were moving further away from this earth at higher speed since they could be a possibility that the galaxies would make a round turn after numerous days or months or years later. Thus, the assumption that the earth could be expanding by seeing galaxies were moving further away from this earth was simply some kind of speculation.

By the way the earth rotates around the sun by 365 days, how do you know the galaxies might rotate themselves around with years due to vast space of this universe? Edwin Hubble jumped into the conclusion that the galaxies would be expanding by observing and comparing the galaxies within a few days in his span of life is insufficient or rather speculative. This is due to how we would know that some galaxies might take more than a hundred years to make a full turn since this universe is in a vast space.

b) The earth is just small as comparative as the whole universe. To visualize from a small end, the earth, to the whole universe so as to jump into the conclusion is rather full of speculation. This is due to Edwin Hubble does not know how the universe looks like whether it looks like a sphere with boundary beyond. He also could not even be able to visualize what goes beyond the boundary. If there is a boundary that is beyond this universe, what substances that would be formed to restrict the space of universe? Could this boundary be stretchable or expandable? What if the boundary of this universe is not stretchable, the whole universe would be kept within it? If the boundary of this universe is not stretchable, how could the universe be expanding? Are there matters that go beyond the boundary of this universe? As Edwin Hubble saw the movement of the galaxies from the small little earth without the overview of the universe, his conclusion is full of speculation. Thus, it is irrational to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding simply by seeing that the galaxies were moving away from his sight while staring at the galaxies on earth.

.

c) There could be a possibility that this whole universe could be as a sphere and that all planets, moon and etc. could be rotating round and round within the sphere. It could be that the galaxies that Edwin Hubble was observing were moving faster speed than our galaxies. As the moving speed of another group of galaxies was faster than us, it seems to be that its moving away from our earth with fast speed. However, indeed that galaxies might perform its routine movement to turn round and round just that its speed is faster than the speed of our galaxies. Despite that galaxies might have moved faster than our galaxies, it still moves round and round within the big boundary of galaxies. If that is so, it is irrational to use it to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding simply by seeing that the galaxies were moving away from his sight while staring at and comparing it while he was on earth.

Thus, using the evidence from Edwin Hubble to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding is rather speculation. As it is speculation, it is irrational to use it to support that Big Bang theory.

Cromper 6 years ago

'Cromper I already answered your question... the Big Bang theory is wrong straight off the blocks so there is no need to go further...'

In that case, let's go no further.

Thanks for the comments.

haggler 6 years agofrom Sydney Australia

Cromper I already answered your question... the Big Bang theory is wrong straight off the blocks so there is no need to go further as the math may be correct from that point on but the conclusion will be wrong as the initial assumption is wrong in saying that nothing can explode if you add a billion years to it... that is not science but a fairytale story that we read to our children. Perhaps you have discovered in your own personal life that nothing happens without someone doing or preparing the work and no one is saying to forget and stop asking questions we are simply requesting a distinction between real science and our best guess according to our current knowledge and technology. Any further calculations based on this initial assumption would never be valid to convict anyone in the court of law.

Now I am pleased you weren't executing any of my designs if the age of the earth errors do not ring alarm bells in your workshop... as a mechanical engineer if you can't prove it, show it or reproduce in an experiment... I am not interested.

Now regarding you brushing aside the impact Sir Isaac Newton had on kinetics, dynamics and the science of the strength of materials could you please clarify how his simplest formula F=ma is not 100% accurate today? Yes you don't have to incorporate friction into the formula. Perhaps my university education is getting old and I am not aware of this formula being superseded?

Also I do not have a problem with quantum theory but quantum theory does not allow the universes to appear spontaneously from nothing? Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception and there is no law that will produce a Big Bang out of nothing unless you use the fairytale analogy of billions and billions of years ago a princess kissed a frog and here we are. I am sorry if you disagree.

Cromper 6 years ago

I also have a 14 year long mechanical engineering background (from multi-spindle cam operated lathes up to state-of-the-art Nakamura-Tome CNCs). I use to program, set, and operated all machinery and even make my own tooling from tool steel and carbide blanks. I used to work down to tolerances of +/- 10 microns and sometimes less. I know the importance of precision!

But I don't know what that has to do with this?

We can either say; 'something has come from nothing - how did it happen?' or 'something cannot come from nothing, so let's just forget it!'

Newton's formulae have been superceded by quantum mechanics, but we still use Newton's maths as a practical method. Newton's laws are not 100% correct, but they're good enough for our everyday applications. Are you going to claim quantum mechanics is a big lie?

I don't like it when people argue against a theory they know little about, so I repeat my question; can you give me examples of the Big Bang theory that you believe are false?

Scientists have got it wrong by billions of years and I can tell you now that they will revise the age of the earth again by at least another 50 Billion in the next 100 years. In fact after doing some technical analysis of the current error trend it is clear we have a BULL market here and I am looking into buying some stock on the up trend.

Look I have a mechanical engineering background so precision is important to me so I guess it is only natural that I lean towards practical and well grounded scientists like Sir Isaac Newton whose formulas have contributed greatly to our current technology and the quality of life we have today. Yes I do have issues with "pity me" scientists who go beyond laboratory testing and tell me if I get in a plane that travels faster than the speed of light I can actually travel back in time by catching my old light reflections. The science may be correct but the assumption, premise and conclusion is wrong!

I do not believe you can create a product without materials or energy; and to tell me that nothing exploded in a Big Bang is not science but a fairytale. Why can't they just be humble and say we do not know what happened in the beginning. This doesn't mean that there has to be a God. I know the billions of years helps some people to believe but my mum has stopped reading those fairytale books along time ago... but I still remember how they start; perhaps if I remind you - you will be able to recognise when a fairytale is about to start... "Once upon a time, many, many years ago after billions and billions of years nothing exploded."

Cromper 6 years ago

haggler,

"What I mean is this... if we look at the age of the earth you will discover that the earth had aged billions of years just in Stephen Hawking's lifespan."

I'm not sure Stephen Hawking ever touched on the subject of geology, but I'll let that one lie.

We shouldn't be surprised to find the age of the earth is updated to a more accurate approximation. It could change again in the future. But it certainly will not be revised back to 6,000-10,000 years!

"People who follow Stephen Hawkins blindly without checking his formulas for themselves are actually operating by faith in Stephen Hawking's work. That is all fine but know that you have just made his version of science your high priest (religion)."

Can you tell me which of Stephen Hawking's formulae you have checked and discovered to be false? I would be very interested!

Cromper 6 years ago

James,

I think you will find that the Catholic physicist who coined the Big Bang Theory, did so in an attempt to ridicule the theory, not support it! Unless I am mistaken.

haggler 6 years agofrom Sydney Australia

I think your choice of scientist missed a great Christian Scientist in Sir Isaac Newton who was a diligent Bible Scholar and follower of Jesus Christ. What I like about Isaac as a scientist is that his scientific theories were real formulas that could be measured and tested in the laboratory (F=ma) unlike many modern philosophers that are sold to us as pure scientists but have actually entered a realm of a mixture between science and theory beyond our current knowledge and technology under a false banner of "scientific fact".

Don't show me what you are going to do with your scientific reports and thesis but show me what you have done!

What I mean is this... if we look at the age of the earth you will discover that the earth had aged billions of years just in Stephen Hawking's lifespan. That is not science but theory and philosophy which is close to being classified as a religion for personal motives and government funding. Notice that Isaac Netwon's formula F=ma had not changed. Science to me must be proven, measured or tested! The rest is theory that may be true but please don't put it in a science book just because it is presented in a scientific format.. let's be honest with our limitations and not label theory as science.

Charles Darwin evil doctrine gave Hitler scientific credential (medical reports) why the disabled, the weak, the gypsy and the Jews should be exterminated for the good of society. Hitler also used others sources to support his occult blood Aryan religion from Luther, catholic anti-Semitic doctrine to Hinduism and others in an attempt to win public support for his own cause and ambition.

People who follow Stephen Hawkins blindly without checking his formulas for themselves are actually operating by faith in Stephen Hawking's work. That is all fine but know that you have just made his version of science your high priest (religion).

Think for yourself!

ctbrown7 6 years ago

Interesting hub. “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.” Whatever one's belief in God, it is ignorant to believe in a being with such immense intelligence and in the same breath believe he is simplistically self absorbed and self interested as if he was some sort of puffed up academic.

Author

Hugh Williamson 6 years agofrom Northeast USA

James -

Thanks for reading and commenting.

Charles James 6 years agofrom Between New York and London

I am certain most --if not all-- these men and certainly quite a few contributors unmentioned (esp the Catholic physicist who coined the Big Bang Theory) were too politely busy with their research, to consider the fundamental purpose/outcome of that research. The answer to their question. Where did "it" all come from?!

The video you have shown, I have seen before and a view others. One such display was at the Haden Planetarium, here in New York. Splendid compilation and visual of the universe. Looking at how small a single celled organism is, to the greatness of the mapped universe depicted in that little video can only conclude something wonder was made by something equally as wonderful. If anyone denies it, everything they are looking at and for becomes what I define as religion/religious.

James.

Author

Hugh Williamson 6 years agofrom Northeast USA

Jason - Thanks for reading and commenting.

I wrote the Hub out of curiosity and I had fun researching it. I tried not to poke the bees nest of the religion vs. atheism war.

Author

Hugh Williamson 6 years agofrom Northeast USA

Cromper - thanks for your comment.

Jason R. Manning 6 years agofrom Sacramento, California

Hi Hugh, great hub you wrote here. It is nice to see near zero knee jerk reaction to your conclusion. It is rare to open up a subject like this and not find miles of diatribe. We all have an axe to grind. Thanks for sharing your non-biased information. Cheers.

Cromper 6 years ago

I wouldn't say science or religion are in search of the truth. Religion claims it IS the truth and anything which contradicts it is false.

Very interesting and well written hub!

Author

Hugh Williamson 6 years agofrom Northeast USA

Darwin and many others had to be concerned with running afoul of the church teachings of the day. If religion and science are both a search for truth, there should be no conflict between the two since there is only one real truth - not a separate truth for each.

Thanks for reading and commenting.

Cromper 6 years ago

There is another element at play here and that is the fear of 'coming out' as atheistic. Darwin himself was reluctant to allow the science community see his work on evolution for fear of being discredited by his religious colleagues who would more than likely be offended by his findings.

What really frustrates me is how theists are happy to quote scientists and give them so much respect when it suits them, whilst at the same time attempting to undermine their theories, claiming they are wrong.

Science does not disprove the existence of a creator; but it does make a mockery of a human-like god.

Author

Hugh Williamson 6 years agofrom Northeast USA

Thanks for reading Ben. I think that in order to develop a personal life philosophy it is helpful to look at things other than religious traditions. Art is another area worth researching. "10 brilliant artists and...?"

Ben Graves 6 years agofrom Chicago, IL

Really interesting, well-written and researched article. It's nice to know that many of these men share the same uncertainty about there being a God as I do. I think that anyone following the Bible strictly and its perception of a God is a fool, but that's for another discussion. These guys were all intelligent and I respect their opinions.

Author

Hugh Williamson 6 years agofrom Northeast USA

Thanks for reading cooldad.

I found it interesting that most scientists will not even give a viewpoint about such things as God or religion unless some questioner drags it out of them. Non scientists are not so reluctant.

I enjoyed this hub, well done. It's always interesting to see how such brilliant minds thought about god and the universe.

Author

Hugh Williamson 6 years agofrom Northeast USA

As I said Al, "It seems that in the end, it really does come down to belief.."

Al 6 years ago

For the universe as complex and orderly as it is to create itself, especially living things on our planet is a complete and utter impossibility. There is a God, the God of the Bible. "The fool has said in his heart there is no God." Psalm 14:1. Here is a book that documents 40 scientists who believe in God. http://www.amazon.com/Seventh-Day-Scientists-Acade...

Author

Hugh Williamson 7 years agofrom Northeast USA

Tony - Thanks for reading. I have also found your hubs to be open minded and even handed. Love & Peace back at you.

Tony McGregor 7 years agofrom South Africa

I really enjoyed this Hub - it was informative and even-handed.

Love and peace

Tony

Author

Hugh Williamson 7 years agofrom Northeast USA

Daniel - Thanks for your kind comment and thanks for reading.

Daniel Carter 7 years agofrom Western US

Loved this hub. Very informative and as mentioned, well put together without personal bias. Much appreciated. Looking forward to reading more!

Author

Hugh Williamson 7 years agofrom Northeast USA

Hi MA -

Scientists don't seem to spend a lot of time pondering theology so it's probably best to look elsewhere for our answers to the mysteries of life.

The discoveries they make give us some fascinating insights but, so far, no proof of the existence or lack of existence of any deity. Thanks for reading & commenting.

M. Adittan 7 years ago

Who gave intelligence to these scientists. Scientists believe Cause and Effect. In my view effect is Scientists' intelligence Cause is God. What did these Scientists going to response my analogy.

Author

Hugh Williamson 7 years agofrom Northeast USA

Hi Sam9999 - Thanks for reading and commenting.

Sam9999 7 years ago

I think that science is great, but getting spiritual wisdom from scientists is like getting scientific knowledge from the preacher. Their opinion is no more valid than yours or mine. Very interesting hub though.

Author

Hugh Williamson 7 years agofrom Northeast USA

Hi cc - Newton certainly is among the most important scientists and maybe THE most important. There just wasn't enough room to include everyone. It would be interesting to see a more complete and much longer list -- to see how the numbers would add up then.

Thanks for reading and commenting.

cceerpp 7 years agofrom Ghana

Quite interesting. You left out Sir Isaac Newton a confessed Theist.

Author

Hugh Williamson 7 years agofrom Northeast USA

Thanks for reading esraustun -- I was trying to inform without interjecting any personal beliefs into the hub. Hopefully I succeeded.

esraustun 7 years ago

Very nicely brought together to give readers a brief information about leading scientists. My voting is up :)

Author

Hugh Williamson 7 years agofrom Northeast USA

Hi AV and thanks for reading.

Truthfully, I find it difficult to know just what Hawking's personal philosophy is. The last I read, he said he could account for creation without the need for a deity.

I guess if I wanted information on black holes, I would go to Hawking, but as for philosophical wisdom, scientists don't seem to have any more insight into deity (or lack of one) than anyone else.

The ten scientists I mentioned and each one of us all have our own personal beliefs. No matter how strongly held, a belief is just that -- a belief, not a fact.

Alexander A. Villarasa 7 years agofrom Palm Springs

Hello Mr. Williamson:

In a very recent Time magazine interview, Stephen Hawking stated that he does not believe that God does not exist; however he qualified his statement by saying that he believes in an impersonal God i.e. the laws of physics..(?) gravity.

Which to my thinking is having his cake and eating it too.

I personally believe in a personal God, nonetheless, I won't begrudge the belief systems of the scientist you profiled in your hub.

Author

Hugh Williamson 7 years agofrom Northeast USA

Meta -

I would suspect there are many scientists who attend church regularly, like your friend. The one thing that seems common among scientists is that they mostly don't want to get involved in any religion vs. science debates.

Thanks for reading and commenting.

metascience 7 years ago

I know a top scientist in NASA goes to the church every Sunday. His name id Dr. W.....

Good luck in your in your discovery.

Author

Hugh Williamson 7 years agofrom Northeast USA

Thanks for the kind words, M. I'll make a point of reading Hawking's new book.

Parrster - Interesting point. I suppose one wouldn't take their car to a chef for repairs so why would we look to scientists for philosophical wisdom. Thanks for reading and commenting.

Richard Parr 7 years agofrom Oz

I enjoyed this, thanks. I am reminded that intellectual giftedness in one area does not equate to wisdom in another, just as the sum of our 'scientific knowledge' does not equate to understanding the unseen. In the scheme of the things, man's understanding of life -leave alone its beginnings- is a drop in the ocean of knowledge, and therefore hardly reliable as use in determining the divine.

Scientists, for all their mental capacity, none-the-less remain human; as easily plagued by prejudice, short-sightedness and weakness as the rest of us. And, as it has since throughout history, I've no doubt that scientists will make future discoveries that again turn what we thought we knew on its head; let's not, therefore, put too great a stock in any single groups ability to determine ultimate truth. Nice hub.

Author

Hugh Williamson 7 years agofrom Northeast USA

Hi cathylynn99,

I'd be willing to bet that many of the above scientists also vacillated in their personal beliefs. Maybe that comes with the territory of being open minded.

Thanks for reading.

cathylynn99 7 years agofrom northeastern US

fascinating. i'm an einsteinophyle. anything on him is my cup of tea. my IQ puts me in the barely-a-genius category. sometimes it seems as if god is looking after me, but in my more rational moments, i vascillate between atheist and agnostic. on the other hand, i know a NASA engineer, much smarter than me, who's Catholic.

Author

Hugh Williamson 7 years agofrom Northeast USA

Winston - Thanks for reading and commenting.

AKA Winston 7 years ago

Hugh,

Nice, even-handed documentation without trying to propagandize a viewpoint.

Only one small quibble, and that is that Hubble did not propose the expanding universe nor the Big Bang. Hubble documented redshift from distant gallaxies.

A Catholic priest, George Lamaitre' actually introduced the idea of the Big Bang from concepts originated in Einstein's General Relativity.

Author

Hugh Williamson 7 years agofrom Northeast USA

Thanks for your comment. It was a fun HUB to write on, what I consider to be, a very interesting subject.

audra spirit 7 years ago

A very informative hub. I believe the mystery of the beginning and God will stay a mystery. I also believe faith and belief are very individual and personal. Thanks for this interesting hub.

Author

Hugh Williamson 7 years agofrom Northeast USA

Gypsy - thanks for reading. I believe that the history of religion opposing science probably is probably irksome to most scientists. I observe that modern scientists may occasionally discuss the possibility of some form of god but very few have any interest in organized religion.

Interesting hub which I have just stumbled upon. I think the average man in the street needs religion as a crutch with heaven to look forward to after the daily grind of life. Thank you for putting it together.

mateo 8 years ago

Hawkings himself has said he is an agnostic.

David Bowman 8 years agofrom USA

Personally, I think the more educated a person is about the natural world, the less religious that person will tend to be. Some scientist do, however, believe in a vague type of "power" that governs the cosmos - much like Einstein's view. However, this belief is generally distinct and, how should I say, more "sophisticated" than the beliefs held by the average religious person.